Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating what the tool returns and constrains it to completed Kolmo projects in a neighborhood, going beyond the annotation-only safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by return contents and concrete usage examples. Each sentence earns its place, and the example queries are useful without padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple: one well-documented parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists. The description already summarizes the return values and use cases, so nothing needed by an agent to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single 'neighborhood' parameter already documented with examples like 'Ballard' and 'Capitol Hill.' The description restates that the value should be a Seattle neighborhood or city but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'See what remodeling projects Kolmo Construction has completed in a specific Seattle neighborhood or city.' It further clarifies the return shape—project counts by category, example projects, and typical project descriptions—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or get_neighbor_permit_activity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context through concrete example queries ('Has Kolmo worked in Ballard?') and frames it for 'hyperlocal social proof.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.